lol wow

I had rounds 3 and 4 as definitely condit, 2 as probably condit and 1/5 as probably diaz but both were close fwiw. I'd actually feel like 50-45 condit is a better score than 48-47 Diaz tbh if we're going to misscore the fight but it was a pretty clear 49-46 or 48-47 condit imo

I really thought the decision was going to be about as 50-50 as it gets. I would have given Condit the edge personally (and I had $ on Diaz), but with the big GSP money fight and all the Diaz hype I thought it would influence the decision to a certain degree depending on the judges.

LOL I cannot believe the vitriol coming from Diaz supporters about this decision. Wait a minute, yes I can. It's still comical.

HOW DARE CARLOS CONDIT EVADE HIS OPPONENT'S STRIKES! HE SHOULD STAND STILL AND TRADE WITH HIM DAMMIT CUZ LIKE THAT'S WHAT REAL FIGHTERS LIKE DIAZ DO!!!!1111!!11!

CONDIT WAS THE BETTER MAN. He landed way more strikes than Diaz. In Japanese-style, overall fight judging, there would be no question that Condit was the winner. With 10 point must, it was close but still clearly for Condit IMO.

This would depend how much significance you put into having someone's back for 1.5 minutes. I think that is by far the most significant event of the entire fight, and having full back control being the most dominant position in mma. So I would find giving Condit rd5 ridiculous.

Look at the fight metric striking numbers. Condit landed significantly more strikes at a higher accuracy % in every round except #2 which was 32 to 29 strikes landed for Diaz. The totals for the fight were 151 strikes landed of 320thrown, 47% for Condit and for Diaz it was 105 of 246 for 43%. Diaz was 1 for 3 on takedowns, Condit 0 for 0. This fight was close....how?

I feel landing more significant strikes to your opponent's body and head is way more significant than riding someone's back and attempting two submissions that both fail without even being very threatening. So...ya I don't think giving Condit round 5 is "ridiculous" at all and FightMetric agrees, scoring it for Diaz by just 4 points, which is the smallest amount you can outscore someone and still win the round in FM scoring (3 or less diff is scored as a draw AFAIK).

Although he got the takedown in round 5, it led to no real threat of submission. What exactly did Diaz do with his "most dominant position in mma" when he had "full back control?" The striking in round 5 was favorable for Condit, 25 of 44 thrown 57% vs Diaz 17 of 45, 38%.

lol, so in your mind takedowns and dominant positions don't count if you get slightly outstruck on the feet in that rd.

lol....

please tell me people aren't calling diaz vs. Condit a robbery in this thread, like with Bisping vs. Sonnen?

I haven't read it yet, but will when i wake up. If it's just the same ******ed BS as the last time, please tell me and spare me the pain.

FYP and yeah, I do think that.

@kingofcool, naw most on this board feel Condit deserved the win, just a couple of butthurt Diaz fans griping. Fairly standard.

Yeah "soundly"

inigomontoya.jpeg

I don't care about those numbers because it is lumping all strikes together into one number, but not all strikes were created equal. A huge number of Condit's strikes were leg kicks. A leg kick, in and of itself, is basically nothing in a fight. It is a means to an end. You kick a guys leg repeatedly so he can't move as well, and his balance suffers.

And yes, the leg kicks did take their toll on Diaz. But to say a guy won a fight because he kicked his opponent in the leg is absurd. You would never say that. You work on a guy's legs, that's great, but then you have to capitalize on it, or you accomplished nothing. And Condit did to some extent. He certainly won Round 4, and you can argue Round 3 as well.

The judges who gave Condit 4-1 in rounds did an absolutely piss poor job. I don't think Round 5 needs to be discussed. Rounds 1 and 2 were only close if you don't count aggression. Aggression is not everything, no, but it IS a factor. You have to give some credit to the aggressor, as he is the one putting himself at risk, and you know, making this into a FIGHT rather than two guys standing there. If there are no other prevailing factors, then you have to give the round to the guy who was the aggressor for 5:00 out of 5:00. If you instead try to split hairs, say that the other guy landed some leg kicks, he landed a glancing backfist, then you are "doing it wrong".

To take a round away from the guy who is pressing the action every second, it's a legitimate strategy, but you have to do some actual damage! attempt to finish the fight! Condit absolutely did not do that in any combination of 3 rounds. I can give him two rounds at best.

You can clearly make a case for Bisping winning rounds 1 and 2 against Sonnen, giving Diaz 3 rounds when he was outstruck over the course of the fight pretty badly is just insane. Not even close to a robbery here the only question is 48-47 or 49-46 condit (which conveniently are the two scores the judges gave out)

about as much as you can for Nick in this fight. I guess it depends where you have your money, how biased you decide to be.

Going strictly by fightmetric to get a rough estimate:

The deciding round was the first in bisping vs. Sonnen (the round everyone who had Bisping winning gave to.... bisping) was scored 77-62(15 point margin) in favor of Chael.

I guess rounds 2 and 5 are considered Diaz in this fight?
Condit won round 4 big.

Round 1 and 3 was scored 68-56(12 points margin) and 61-57(4 point margin) for Condit. Give either of those to Diaz and he wins.

Now i feel Condit won this fight, no doubt. But it's not worse to cry robbery here than it was in Chael vs. Sonnen to be perfectly honest. It's quite horrible in both fights. And i lost money on the Diaz fight and is as such biased, and still would never suggest he won.

So much fail in this post I don't even know where to start.

First off, your argument is basically "leg kicks don't matter." Go watch boxing if you only want to watch punches. Leg kicks can be significant strikes, and Condit was landing some hard shots.

Your point that Diaz was "the aggressor" is actually extremely off-base. He was plodding forward into Condit's strikes. If that's your definition of "aggression" go jerk off to some Leonard Garcia fights. Condit was the one throwing the first strike very often. And if there are no "prevailing factors" the round is a 10-10.

Your next point is "you have to do some actual damage." LOL did you see their faces after the fight?! Diaz was wearing plenty of damage. Condit, very little.

so walking into strikes counts as effective aggression in your mind?

I scored round 5 for diaz and round two 10-10, rest Condit.

Literally no clue how those two judges gave round 3 to diaz and the rest condit. Round 3 was his second most dominant round imo after 4.

To be fair Nick Diaz did outstrike Condit with both body and head shots, he only lost (big) on leg kicks.

I had money on Nick and I'm a fan of him as a fighter, screaming robbery is pretty stupid imo but so is saying 49-46 based on fightmetric scores.

I think it was very close, personally first two rounds could go either way, fourth was definately Condit's and Diaz should surely win the fifth after the last 1½ min on the ground. If that isn't "stealing the round" I dunno what is, besides it wasn't just LnP - he actually went for subs.

I kinda feel like Condit won, not because he's the best fighter but because he's the best gameplanner. to be honest I thought he would be much more aggressive and come closer to finishing him, after talking about "can Nick Diaz take what I can dish out". Whatever Nick fought stupid and was probably way too confident he won the rounds because he was pushing the pace. No doubt who wins a real fight and not a point fight tho - if you can't finish Nick Diaz early you're probably not gonna do it at all.

Not a robbery, not a "great" fight. Smart win for Condit - to bad GSP will prolly decision his ass and the belt is only borrowed.

Grats to the people who had $$ on Condit, nice pick - hope he will go back into killmode after the GSP fight

This clearly, Condits best rounds were definitely 4 then 3, it's amazing a judge can score r3 for Diaz but none of 1/2/5 (all of which individually a case can be made for even though I personally think Condit won 2 and probably 1 in addition to 3 and 4)

UFC noob here.

How is octagon control defined?

It seemed like Condit executed a game plan perfectly, but it also looked like he ran away from Diaz the whole fight. How can Diaz not get credit for being the aggressor? What about significant blows? Does ducking and weaving count as octagon control, or is it because Diaz seemingly walked into a bunch of shots before Condit bobbed and weaved again?

Enlighten me plz.

what are you talking about?

I am a Diaz fan and had bet on Diaz and while the rounds were fairly close, I thought it was plainly obvious that Condit won the fight.

Octagon control is defined (not actual definition) as pressing the action, dictating where the fight takes place, and controlling the center of the octagon.

If you're new, it might seem like Condit was "running away," however, it's not the case. Condit was engaging in the exchanges, clearly landing, and getting out of a bad position. Nick Diaz is a mastermind when he has someone pressed against the cage.

As far as significant strikes go, I didn't look up CompuStrike or FightMetric stats, but I do know this; Nick Diaz likes to accumulate damage by throwing 70% of his strikes at 50, 60 percent. When those all start to add up, that's when he pops you with a liver punch at 100%. On the other hand, Condit is throwing his shots with everything he has. Diaz never got a chance to accumulate and then land the devastating blow.

If I were a judge, I'd certainly take into account octagon control, however, not to the extent most casual fans would. I would look at the fight as who is implementing their game more effectively, doing more damage, and receiving less damage. If the fight was essentially a tie at the end due to damage taken and given, I would look at who was the aggressor, and give the fight to them for pressing. Condit was clearly the winner due to the amount due to the strikes landed and damage inflicted.

Take Forrest Griffin vs. Anderson Silva. Forrest Griffin was constantly pressing the action, but he happened to be fighting the best counter-striker in the game. Octagon control means nothing to me due to their contrasting styles, and the results, obviously.

I'd have to watch again, but I scored the fight last night and got this - 1st 10-10 tie, 2nd 10-9 CC, 3rd 10-9 CC, 4th 10-9 CC, 5th 10-9 Diaz. I could see how you could give the 5th a 10-10 due to the strikes and damage inflicted on the feet by CC and the back control by Diaz, but did score it 10-9 Diaz.

Sorry, a lil' long winded. Hope that helps.

After cleaning house last night on those fights, I freerolled 8 units on Rampage against Bader at -230. Letsssgooo

Swoop - Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I go +15U on a card, and you go +12U on a card, it's not as impressive on my end, due to the amount of money were betting, correct? It's probably wrong to look at it this way, but I'm money hungry, alright?

Anybody have thoughts on the Edgar - Bendo fight?

bendo will probably praise da jesus in the postfight. But im a perpetual doubter of Edgars abilities despite telling myself I never shall again after every fight.

I wish there was a prop bet that Bendo praises Jesus after his fight. I'd dump my life savings on that.

That's the thing with Edgar - I keep telling myself he is too small for Bendo, but size hasn't been a issue yet especially with two Gray Maynard fights. After seeing his chin, I don't think Benson's going to knock him out, nor submit him. I could see Edgar pointing him out for a five round decision.